The Independent National Electoral Commission has the authority to enforce electoral rules, but that authority carries an obligation to explain consequential decisions and demonstrate consistency. What precisely disqualified the affected candidates, and have the relevant legal provisions been applied uniformly? Who, ultimately, should be held accountable when the right to appear on the ballot becomes a matter of dispute. Jonathan Eze writes.
Democracy begins long before voters approach the ballot box. It begins with the rules governing who may contest, the institutions entrusted with enforcing those rules and the confidence citizens place in the fairness of the process.
Against this backdrop, the omission of Ladi Adebutu, Isa Ali Pantami and other candidates from INEC’s published lists for the 2027 governorship elections raises questions that reach beyond party politics into the foundations of electoral legitimacy. While no candidate is above the law, no electoral institution should be beyond scrutiny when its decisions determine who can participate in a democratic contest.
Are the omissions the necessary consequences of statutory violations, or do they reveal procedural weaknesses requiring urgent redress? And can an election command enduring legitimacy if the process determining access to the ballot is itself a subject of controversy?
That is the controversy confronting the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) following the publication of its governorship candidates’ lists for the February 6, 2027 elections. Among the prominent omissions are Ladi Adebutu, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate in Ogun State, and Professor Isa Ali Pantami, the party’s candidate in Gombe State. Aminu Abdussalam Gwarzo, the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) candidate in Kano State, is also reportedly missing from the list. In Bauchi State, candidates of the Social Democratic Party (SDP), New Nigeria Peoples Party (NNPP), Action Alliance (AA) and Accord Party were reportedly omitted.
The development raises questions that extend beyond the fortunes of individual politicians. Was INEC enforcing the Electoral Act, responding to specific legal impediments or correcting nomination irregularities? Were the same standards applied consistently across parties? And has the commission adequately explained its decisions?
These are questions of electoral accountability that demand evidence-based answers rather than partisan conjecture.
The law behind the omissions
The legal context is central to understanding the controversy. On September 24, 2026, the Supreme Court restored Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026, provisions concerning political party membership registers and participation in party primaries, congresses and conventions.
Section 77(5) restricts participation in party primaries to members whose names appear in the membership register submitted to INEC within the prescribed period. Section 77(6) requires parties to use the relevant register for their primaries, while Section 77(7) stipulates consequences for failure to submit the register within the statutory timeframe.
The ruling provides a legal basis for enforcing membership and nomination requirements. It would therefore be premature to conclude that every omission reflects political interference. Equally, citing the law does not, by itself, establish that every individual decision was correctly made.
In Adebutu’s case, questions have arisen over whether his name appeared in the PDP membership register submitted to INEC. The Ogun PDP has rejected allegations of non-compliance, maintaining that Adebutu registered within the stipulated period and that the relevant documentation was submitted. Adebutu has similarly maintained that he remains a duly registered member of the party.
Pantami’s case presents a different complication. A Federal High Court in Gombe nullified his initial emergence as the PDP candidate and ordered a fresh primary. He subsequently won another primary on September 29, 2026. His camp maintains that the exercise complied with the court’s directive and that the omission is being addressed through legal and administrative channels.
These cases should not be conflated. A dispute over membership registration is distinct from one concerning compliance with a court-ordered primary. INEC must explain the specific legal and factual grounds applicable to each candidate.
Political intrigue or administrative failure?
The omissions have inevitably generated suspicion. The Ogun PDP has alleged that pressure from the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) contributed to Adebutu’s exclusion. Such allegations are serious, but they remain claims by an interested political party and should not be treated as established evidence of interference.
Nevertheless, unexplained decisions involving prominent candidates create fertile ground for speculation. The appropriate response is neither to presume a conspiracy nor to grant INEC unquestioning immunity from scrutiny.
Did the commission identify specific statutory violations in each case? Were the affected parties notified of deficiencies? Were comparable cases treated consistently? Were relevant court orders properly considered? If the omissions resulted from administrative errors, what lawful mechanism exists to correct them?
These questions are essential to determining whether the commission’s decisions rest on verifiable facts and applicable law.
The scrutiny must also extend to the political parties. Parties cannot demand strict compliance from INEC while treating membership registers, nomination procedures and statutory deadlines casually. Where a party fails to meet legal requirements, its candidates may suffer the consequences regardless of their popularity or political standing.
Conversely, a party’s insistence that it complied with the law cannot substitute for documentary verification. Accountability must apply to both the electoral regulator and the organisations it regulates.
Is INEC truly independent?
The controversy also raises a broader question about the meaning of electoral independence. Under Section 153 of the 1999 Constitution, INEC is established as an independent electoral commission. But institutional independence is demonstrated not merely by constitutional provisions; it is sustained through impartial decisions, consistent procedures and transparent explanations.
An unpopular decision does not automatically establish political compromise, just as an institution’s claim to independence does not place its decisions beyond scrutiny.
The controversy surrounding Kingsley Chinda, listed as the APC governorship candidate in Rivers State, further illustrates the importance of consistency. Reports have raised questions about the timing of his party registration relative to the APC primary. The Rivers APC has defended his candidacy. Whether the circumstances amount to a violation must be determined by the applicable law and verified facts.
The public is entitled to understand how membership and nomination requirements are applied across comparable cases. This is not a demand that INEC exclude additional candidates; it is a demand for equal treatment under the law.
Parties’ responses and narrowing window
The PDP has said it is engaging INEC to resolve the omissions in accordance with the law and established electoral guidelines. Its spokesperson, Jungudo Mohammed, urged affected candidates and supporters to remain calm while discussions continue. Pantami’s camp has expressed confidence that its legal and liaison teams can address the matter.
The NDC has maintained that Gwarzo remains its candidate, while the Kwankwasiyya Movement has called on INEC to explain the exclusion. In Bauchi, the reported omission of candidates from four parties raises additional concerns about smaller political organisations’ ability to secure representation on the ballot.
These reactions reflect the affected parties’ positions, not definitive legal findings. The precise grounds for each omission, and the availability of remedies, must be established from official records and any subsequent court decisions.
The approaching election makes a prompt resolution imperative. Uncertainty can disrupt campaign planning, weaken party structures and leave supporters unsure whether their preferred candidates will appear on the ballot. Smaller parties may be particularly disadvantaged by the financial and logistical demands of prolonged litigation.
Affected parties may seek administrative clarification or pursue appropriate legal remedies, subject to statutory deadlines and the circumstances of each case. However, neither the candidates nor the public should assume that every omission is reversible or that every legal challenge will succeed.
What is at stake?
If the omissions stand, the affected parties could enter the elections without the candidates they intended to present in Ogun, Gombe, Kano and Bauchi. Their supporters could consequently lose the opportunity to vote for those candidates, unless a lawful remedy becomes available.
The wider danger is the erosion of public confidence. When consequential electoral decisions are inadequately explained, citizens may begin to suspect that access to the ballot depends on considerations beyond the law. Such perceptions can weaken institutional credibility even where a decision is legally defensible.
INEC must therefore publish clear explanations of the grounds for the omissions, identify the relevant statutory provisions and clarify whether administrative corrections are legally permissible. Where disputes are before the courts, it should distinguish established facts from matters awaiting judicial determination.
The commission must resist political pressure to reverse lawful decisions, but it must equally demonstrate that its authority is exercised consistently and transparently.
Ultimately, the controversy is larger than the political fortunes of Adebutu, Pantami, Gwarzo or the affected Bauchi candidates.
It concerns whether Nigerians can trust that access to the ballot is governed by clear rules, impartially administered and open to lawful scrutiny.
Political prominence cannot confer immunity from electoral law. Equally, electoral administration must not become so opaque that parties and voters are left to speculate about the reasons candidates have disappeared from official lists.
As the 2027 elections approach, INEC has an opportunity to replace suspicion with evidence and uncertainty with clarity. The credibility of the electoral process will depend not only on whether its decisions withstand legal scrutiny, but also on whether the commission can convincingly demonstrate that those decisions were made fairly.
In a democracy, the ballot is the instrument through which citizens choose their leaders. The process determining who may appear on that ballot must command no less confidence than the vote itself.